So I've been reading threads on dppreview comparing these two lenses. Most say that the 16-85mm has better image quality. Those with the 18-200mm say they love it but that there is vignetting and distortion around the edges at certain settings. Then I went and looked at some images a pixel peeps (I think it was called that), and I could not tell the difference in image quality.
I don't zoom in that much, so I think the 16-85mm would suit me just fine, but I realize it is not quite as versatile.
I am curious what others think. Those of you who have tried out these lenses, what do you think? Is there any difference in optical quality?
I don't shoot Nikon (anymore), however I can say with absolute certainty that image quality, distortion, and vignetting are all affected (in a bad way) with super-zooms like the 18-200, as well as maximum aperture in that the aperture gets smaller as you zoom in. If they weren't, professionals would only carry one lens, instead of a bag (or bags) full.
So, it is quite logical that the 16-85 is going to produce typically better images. That said, the 18-200 has a good rep, and for most people is not going to be significantly disadvantaged in regards to final image quality - if you're not printing poster-sized prints or cropping out 75% of the shot, you won't see the difference.
i have 2 lenses for my nikon, i have an 18-55 and a 55-200, there are times when i wish i had one lens that encompassed it all but as a hobbyist swapping lenses isn't really a big deal as it is very quick and easy to do and it isn't too much kit to take out with me
Unless you are a seasoned professional (in which case you wouldn't be considering either lens) and as long, as Jinx said, as you aren't going to be printing posters or doing extreme cropping, either of the two lenses will give you very high quality prints that you'll be more than happy to put on display. And, I might add, the "flaws" you'll find at poster size will typically not be noticed by your average viewer. I've got a poster-sized print hanging in my home that I shot with an 18-200 mm and I have yet to have someone say anything like "oh, my! shame about the lens distortion and chromatic aberration!" You just can't see it unless you look hard for it. Yes, it is true that the 16-85 offers a bit higher quality, but the difference is really only going show under limited circumstances.
So, truly, your dilema comes down to budget and shooting preference: the 16-85 gives you a bit wider angle for those landscape shots, while the 18-200 gives you more zooming power.
The 18-200mm was my first Nikon lens and it is a great lens. I primarily use it when I am traveling because it is so versatile. During the 365 project (2 months so far), I used it for the first time this weekend at the US Open as I needed the 200mm zoom. I agree with Jinx that you probably won't notice a difference in image quality. Here are two photos that I took with my 18-200mm.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
So, it is quite logical that the 16-85 is going to produce typically better images. That said, the 18-200 has a good rep, and for most people is not going to be significantly disadvantaged in regards to final image quality - if you're not printing poster-sized prints or cropping out 75% of the shot, you won't see the difference.
So, truly, your dilema comes down to budget and shooting preference: the 16-85 gives you a bit wider angle for those landscape shots, while the 18-200 gives you more zooming power.